Demonstrating the urgent need for energy independence. "Iran would hurt US interests if attacked," from Reuters:
TEHERAN - A senior Iranian official on Saturday renewed Teheran’s threat to target US interests around the world if the United States attacked the Islamic Republic over its nuclear programme, Fars News Agency reported.
Washington accuses Iran of seeking to develop atomic weapons, a charge Teheran denies. Although US officials insist they want a diplomatic resolution, they have not ruled out military action if deemed necessary.
‘In case of an American attack against Iran, the interests of this country around the world and in the region will be endangered,’ Mohammad Baqer Zolghadr, a deputy Interior Minister for security affairs, was quoted as saying.
‘Today, all American bases in the region are within the reach of our medium-range weapons,’ said Zolghadr, former deputy commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards.
‘Today, if the slightest disorder in the region’s security and in the security of the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf is created, oil prices will reach $250 a barrel and this will lead to the death of European countries and America in terms of economy and security,’ he added.
Worries about any supply disruption from the world’s fourth biggest oil exporter, Iran, have been one of the factors helping to prop up oil prices. US crude is now around $65 a barrel.
‘Maybe the start of an evil act (could) be in America’s hand but its continuation and end won’t be (in its hands),’ he said.
Iran’s highest authority, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said in February the Islamic Republic would target US interests around the world if it was attacked.
Well, I know that Hugh doesn't want to hear this, but Iraq is sitting on one of the largest oil reserves in the world. So, with Iran's threatening us, there's all the more reason to keep a presence in Iraq...
Okay, Hugh, start the Flame letter that I know I'm going to get... *grin*
Cheers,
http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com
Threats, threats, threats. There is a way to secure all of the Middle East oil fields for us. Yes, they will use suicide imbeciles to try and blow them and us up, but we have the technology to stop that. Question is "do we have the guts?"
The answer, my friends, is blowin' in the wind.
It will hurt Europe a great deal more than us. We aint buying any oil from Iran, how could it ever hurt us? I think Saudies will be more than happy to increase the supply to keep the price affordable.
...once more demonstrating that the jihadis should not control the world's oil supply.
Of course we need energy independence, but meanwhile, oil equals cash, and cash fuels the global jihad.
Why isn't the price of oil $250 now? Or $1,000? Or $1,250? And why wasn't it higher in the past, if indeed the Arabs and Iranians are free, as this man seems to think, to set it at will? The answer is that they are not free to set the price at will, and in fact the price can be made higher, at any point, by self-taxation on the part of the oil-consuming nations. The American government should long ago -- in the fall of 1973 in fact -- put a tax on gasoline, a tax that would always have gone up, in regularly scheduled and known increments. And aside from a gasoline tax, oil should long ago have been taxed so as to ensure that those who might invest in nuclear plants, or in solar and wind energy, or in insulation or energy-saving devices, would have done so, without the owqrry that the price of oil could suddenly collapse.
Beginning n 1973, with the non-stop blague of Sheikh Yamani, the curious notion developed that we, the oil-consuming nations, had to do favors to the oil-producers. This idea began with the so-called "Arab oil boycott" during and after the Yom Kippur War (or October War), which supposedly "punished" countries more favorably disposed to Israel (the United States, The Netherlands) and left "unpunished" those that had taken a pro-Arab line (France, Great Britain). It was nonsense. In fact, oil is fungible, and there is no way for a producer X to boycott country Y, because country Y will simply pay the market price to buy oil that will be produced by country Z (or Q, or U, or V, or W), while producer X will be selling its oil, no longer to country Y, but to other countries that will have reduced their demand for oil from those other producers Q, U, V, W, and Z.
A great many powerful and well-connected people, in Washington, in London, in Paris, got jobs which put them directly (as lobbyists) or indirectly (as "international business consultants," fixers and wheeler-dealers, and foreign policy "experts") on the Arab payroll. It was to their advantage to convince other powerful people that special favors had to be done to placate, to appease the Arab oil producers. No such favors ever needed to have been done. Buying oil from Saudi Arabia is not different in kind from filling up at the local gas station. You would find odd someone who not only paid the posted price for gasoline for his car, but also brought the gas station attendant or owner envelopes filled with cash, and watched the gas station whenever the owner was absent, and swept it, and also lavished all kinds of presents on that gas station owner, in addition to paying the market price, for he labored under some allusion that he was being done a special favor, by being allowed to buy gasoline at the market price.
The worst thing that happened -- as some people made out like gangbusters from their Saudi or other Arab connection -- was that the American government was filled at the top with people who assumed, without ever questioning, that the Arab oil producers not only needed to be appeased in the coin of our promoting the "Peace Process" which merely legitimized the PLO, and helped to disguise the nature of the war on Israel -- a Lesser Jihad and not, as the Arabs tried to make the world think, a "nationalist" struggle for "legitimate rights" of the recently-invented "Palestinian people."
What if the Arab war on Israel had four decades ago not been so easily re-packaged? What if the Israelis had understood and begun to talk about the Lesser Jihad against them, had begun to recognize, that is, that the promptings of Islam, the tenets and attitudes and atmospherics of Islam, were as essential to understanding the Arab war on Israel (that admits of no "solution" but can be contained, if the Israelis cease to make concession after concession, and cease to take seriously the very idea of trusting to "negotiations" and "treaties" with Muslim states or organizations their own perilous future)? Had they done so, then they might, in the early days just after the Six-Day War, have helped put the focus on Islam. And hat that focus been put on Islam, at a time when the full venomous anti-Israel propaganda had not yet caused so many in Western Europe to forget that Israel was in the right, and to believe the very worst of it, then people and statemen in Western Europe might have worried a good deal more, been a lot less heedless, in admitting large numbers of Muslims into their midst.
But the worst thing that happened was that the people on the Arab take, the people who worked directly or indirectly for Arab interests, prevented a sensible energy policy from being pursued in this country, and by preventing it from happening in this country, other countries were less inclined themselves to do what is now understood, at long last, must be done. If Saudi Arabia was indeed our "ally" or even "our staunch ally" then we need not have an energy policy designed to limit the use of oil -- why, such a thing would only antagonize needlessly our good, true, truest friends and allies, the Al-Saud family that rules and robs "Saudi" Arabia.
All threats about oil are false. All those who still believe that the Arabs and Iranians need be treated with kid gloves should be discharged from positions of power or influence. It is important to re-dimension our relations, in the advanced and powerful West, with the primitives who rely entirely on oil and gas revenues, who have nothinig else, who have been unable and will assuredly remain unable, to create modern economies, and who continue to rely on foreign workers at every level, for the running of their countries, or for assistance without which they would naturally sink back to their pre-bonanza level. "Money can buy everything -- except civilization" is how a friend of mine who built military cities in Saudi Arabia summed up his experience of that country.
As for Iran, it is an empire, with Persians ruling over a population that is only 50% Persian. There are Azeris, who may make up 1/3 of the popoulation, and Kurds, and Arabs, and Baluchis -- the ethnic minorities who to varying degrees resent their treatment and status, or as in the case of the Baluchis, have both sectarian and ethnic differences with the ruling Persians.
Those who run the Islamic Republic of Iran fail to realize just how fragile their rule is over a country with all kinds of potential fissiparousness -- which arms drops, and encouragement of other sort, could help to bring about in a very short time.
But what if, somehow, the Iranians somehow thought they could seize control of the oilfields of others, or destroy them? This threat is false. The American military has enough force to destroy the Iranian regime -- it does not have to invade, it does not have to bring "freedom" to "ordinary moms and dads" and so on. It can destroy that regime, and not only the regime, but it can help to promote so many different uprisings that the regime would have its hands full.
And if the Iranians were to destroy their own oil industry -- well, so what? Then they would be left with nothing, and no way to pay for anything including arms.
The Americans can always seize, and without much difficulty, in case of absolute necessity, the natural gas fields of Qatar, the oilfields of tiny Kuwait and the Emirates, and of course the fields in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia -- could do it, and in case of need, not American need (remember that oil is fungible) but the need of all oil-consuming nations, would certainly do so, and a great many countries would be relieved, and applaud the act. This, surely, is something the Arabs and Iranians know -- that their position in the world has come undone over the past few years, and even if those making policy in the E.U. and the U.N. do not yet reflect that sea-change, Western publics certainly have a growing distrust, and hostility, based on a much greater acquaintance with Islam, and the observable behavior of Muslims, in their own countries and elsewhere, then they have had in at least a century. And that knowledge is being disseminated, unstoppably -- and cannot be called back, and put back into the bottle.
Like others have said, the West needs to make a "Moonshot effort " toward alternate energy sources and then it will be US who cripples and destroys THEIR economies , not the other way round. If we sit back and follow the Status Quo and allow this $250 a barrel threat to become reality we will ultimately be forced to Invade them and take over their oil fields just to survive and we WILL lose our moral Highground. that cannot happen. as it is , we are the righteous ones and they ARE the Evil ones and we do PAY far too much for the oil that they provide.
They already are holding us hostage over Nuclear threats , now once again over OIL. The Gov't in Tehran needs to be taken out of power . they are very close to sending the world into Anarchy, and $ 250 a barrel oil will certainly ensure that. A Battle of civilizations unlike any the world has ever seen is at hand.
The time to choose sides is upon us and the time to ACT is NOW.
without us they are nothing but goat herders and nomads. Wew made them and should break them if this is what they have in store for us. For the love of all things Rational , Take these people at their word!
I wouldn't mind. I could ride my bike to work and to the grocery store. Only reason I don't is because there are no bike lanes where I live and the rednecks around here don't respect bikes on the road. If oil went to $250 / barrel, cars would stop and bikes/walking would return. Hey, you might just solve the fat and health problems in the USA if that happened. Gas would go up but health care would go down.
$250 a barrel would be a problem, however it would be a bigger problem for them than us.
If they had their way they would completely annhialate their own economy and instantly cease from being a threat. We do have options where we embargo their oil and don't allow them to move it to anyone and see how long they continue to rattle their sabres.
Robert for Prez...Tancredo for veep..Hugh for
Secretary of State..and, D.C. Watson Sec Defense..
Well Iranian hostage taking in one form or another has been continuing since 1979. Iran wants to provoke a war believing the economic consequences would too great for Europe and USA to bear therefore bringing on a collapse.
Iran might be surprised to see the western world recover from a squeeze on oil supply. The world might adapt to the situation.
So, go ahead, shut off Iranian supply and exports, choke out their economy. The Iranian people would then have a extremely good reason to rise up.
If we don't do it now, it will have to be done later, even in more dire circumstances. I will alter my oil consumption and so will millions of others to rid the earth of this scourge.
Survival of the fittest.
Oil at $250 a barrel? What a bunch of BS. Consider
that North America (Canada and the USA) sit on top
of vast deposits of shale oil. At far less than $250
it becomes economical to extract it.
There are other technologies for producing petroleum
that would also work at those prices. And, given
the push, the efforts to replace petroleum
altogether would take on new steam.
And finally, as Hugh says, oil is a fungible
resource. So this Zolghadr is smoking crack.
root_cause
The Canadian oil sands are being developed at a feverish pace. This I know first hand. There is more oil there than in Saudi. The push is on to drastically reduce middle eastern oil dependency.
I don't care for the Islamofascist crystal ball and the emanating threats.
After 9/11 the US should have ceased the oilfields of Sowdi Arabia. Mecca should have been gone, erased, disappeared entirely.
Neither do I care for the oilprice after being hit by Islamofascist nukes.
What I care about is that the Iranian madman and any other Islamic nation is prevented from developing this technology at any cost.
That is a cause worth fighting for, not to bring 'democracy' to the Islamic nations or other s#*t like that.
I know I'll get hammered for asking this but I don't care.
Is anyone else hearing the Duke say: "Fill your hand, you son of a bitch!"?
Jamaal at RadicalMuslim actually believes there is a Jewish conspiracy to control the olympics. Watch this make national news:
http://radicalmuslim.blogsome.com/2007/06/10/olympic-zion-logo/
What I care about is that the Iranian madman and any other Islamic nation is prevented from developing this technology at any cost.
That is a cause worth fighting for, not to bring 'democracy' to the Islamic nations or other s#*t like that.
Posted by: sheik yer'mami
Right on sheik...
The hajj-- Come to Mecca and walk around the big black rock. When you get close enough, pucker up and give it a smooch. If this isn't idolatry, I don't know what is.
The energy I lost on sleepless nights, during the Cold War would have fueled a Cadillac Escalade for ten years!
Now we're in a real war, and I'm so tired of being foolish and worried. I think the gloves should come off. Oil? Yes. Islam? Never.
Nation-building! Puhleeez! The nation we need to shore up is our own.
I'm preaching to the choir, and not with much eloquence, I know. Sorry about that.
Fear not fellow Westerners, these guys have more to fear from us that we from them. Unless of course, President Bush decides to have another ground war. We have not heard from Libya for a while because "strategic punishment bombing" worked. That is what should have been done with Saddam Hussain. Bomb and bomb, until the message gets across.
As for the Iranians, some punishment bombing would certainly do the trick. Selective retaliation would serve as a warning to other rogue nations. Relatively speaking, cruise missiles are cheap. Once Irans airforce is defeated (ie in about 48 hours), B52's could send the message.
So don't fear the Iranians military. The oil issue, however is important given the Wests dependence on oil. We need an alternative and we need it fast. Once that is accomplished the Iranians can go back to herding goats and eating dirt.
Iran is already responsible for hundreds of American deaths and kidnappings. I'd say they can take their threats and shove them.
I'm not going to keep repeating myself. This article from last week sums things up well enough:
The Road to Victory in Iraq Runs Over Iran and Islam
But, if the Iranians leadership were decapitated by such an attack, who would then be alive to stop to our forces from surrounding their oil fields and taking it all as war reparations?
(Just as Iraq's oil should be siphoned off to pay for our expensive liberation of the Iraqis from their Saddam-issued straitjackets ...only to find out that these tribal lunatics are culturally in need of such restraints.)
There's plenty of fossil fuel in our region. It is only being blocked politically. That would dissolve with $5 a gallon gas.
Drill away! would be the new bumpersticker.
Smoothing us over until the hydrogen fuel stations and/or and battery-run vehicles (charged-up by geothermal, solar, wind, tidal, and other electricity generators) come on line.
They might as well threaten to hold their breaths.
(Ooo! Look, ma, the imam is turning blue!)
Yep I agree, say no to crack, Zolghadr. He probably pulled that number out of his @$$ when he was looking for his stash. Lots of alternatives come into play well below such a number.
Peace out.
The Canadian oil sands are being developed at a feverish pace. This I know first hand. There is more oil there than in Saudi. The push is on to drastically reduce middle eastern oil dependency.
Posted by: sounder
Absolutely correct, Alberta is also putting 4 billion into new refineries for this project. The biggest threat to Canada's economy in the future is the Governators clean fuel bill, he hasn't thought this thing through at all. If we all buy into the Swarzenneger plan Canada is dead.
His plan is all about making dirty fuels illegal making Canadian tar sands a direct target, and making more money for the sweet crude producers in the mid east.
Iranian official: In event of attack, "oil prices will reach $250 a barrel and this will lead to the death of European countries and America in terms of economy and security."
More projection. More hatred born of deep fear. The clock is running out for them. Deep down-they know that. We are looking at a collective psychosis. Real power is restrained. It knows it is powerful. There are no needs for such infantile threats when one is really strong. The weakness here is pathetic.
Horseshit.
If things light up in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia and Iran will be at odds. Saudi has pledged that it would drop oil prices below $50 a barrel to starve Iran (Iran's profit point is $50 a barrel).
Iran's claim to fame would be to block the Straits of Hormuz. Take it from me, that won't happen.
One way to buttress the Straights would be to seize Iran's islands, Kharg being foremost. Lots of oil in them thar' islands.
That and the Canadian oil sands become profitable at $30/barrel. Canada has more oil in it's sand than Saudi Arabia has period.
Essentially, according to those who know far more than I, Iran can be dealt with militarily by using our warships and air power to ensure that the Straits of Hormuz are kept open to oil tankers of all nations, and by bombing Iran's oil refineries. This will, arguably, keep world oil supplies relatively stable, and create a devastating economic crisis in Iran, which has to import most of its oil due to its own inadequate refining capacity. Additionally, as Hugh says, the non-Persian Azeris, Kurds, Baluchis, and Arabs can be encouraged to rise up against the imperialist mullahcracy, exacerbating the sectarian and ethnic tensions that would so weaken not only that poisonous regime, but also Islam itself. Imagine what would be happening if we were to follow a sane foreign policy in the region - we would leave Iraq to its squabbling, murderous denizens, and Iran would be in shambles, both countries rendered far less dangerous to the infidel world.
". . . those who might invest in nuclear plants, or in solar and wind energy, or in insulation or energy-saving devices, would have done so . . . "
That pie in the sky is out of reach. The leftist environmentalists and their Democrat lackeys will ensure that nuclear power is also out of reach, along with any exploration for new oil reserves. These same pseudo-environmentalists also will not allow new coal plants. We have huge coal reserves. Deep coal mining is among the most dangerous occupations in the US. The coal companies are taking applications. Any takers?
As for solar, I live in the east where study after study indicates that solar power is not viable, unless oil does reach $265 per barrel. I speak as an engineer with the first eighteen years of my career in the power industry.
Energy saving devices: A 2004 Ford Taurus gets almost twice the fuel mileage of a 1965 Mercury Comet; I know I have an 04 Taurus and my first car was a five year old Comet. Further reduction
in fuel economy will have to come with even further reduction in vehicle size, weight and power. Want to cram a family of four in a Mini-Cooper?
I have seen the evolution of energy saving devices first hand; it is a work in progress. Houses and buildings consume far less energy than the they did thirty years ago. We can do more; it will take time.
I totally disagree with using taxes to to alter the ecomonic/energy relationship. Want a repeat of the Jimmy Carter economy? Competition did more to improve automobile fuel mileage than all the government programs and incentives since 1970.
Wind energy: Ted Kennedy personally intervened and stopped a wind power project because it would be in his backyard.
If we had raised fuel taxes in 1973, the immigration problem would not exist; no one from the lower Americas would want to live here.
Two things i find funny here.
1) Iran saying it would raise the price to 250 per barrel.
Who cares go ahead.Who will you be selling it to exactly?
2) Someone posted a comment to the tune that they don't care if it goes up to 250 per barrel,they would adjust thier oil consumption then.
Why haven't you already adjusted it?Rememeber who sells the oil in the first place?Wasn't one of the anti jihad objectives long oh so long ago to "adjust" oil consumption?
My last gas and elec bill was $88.00 for the month for a two bedroom home.This in light that the rates have increased.
I ride the bus to work.I car pool with friends to play and to the grocer.
I sleep very well at night knowing very little of my money goes towards killing innocent people,especially my own.
Now if only i get get a say in where the rest of my money goes.However i doubt i could afford my personal lobbyist to work towards having that say about the rest of my misused cash.
Iran is making war on us and has for the past 28 years. Here's what we should be attacking in Iran today, actually for the past several years: IED factories, Basiji forces, Qods forces, their Intelligence HQ, their naval forces and any air and ground forces that are considered a threat. And if they don't release the American hostages, we go after additional targets, political targets, perhaps homes of leading mullahs and their businesses.
If they don't stop their atomic program, attack it too. If they give us more trouble, attack their single gasoline refinery, every gas tanker truck that moves on the roads and every gas station. Shut down Iran. Drop food supplies where needed.
They were at war with us and we weren't at war with them. We're making the same mistakes as before 9/11.
By the way, that 1965 Mercury Comet was a two door sedan with a three speed manual transmission, 200 CID six (3.3 liters) and no air conditioning. By today's standards, it was a gas guzzler.
They're right. We need to get off oil ASAP. But Dubyah Al-Saud has other plans. Instead of pouring money into Iraq they should build power plants related to hydro/wind/waves/solar and promote electric cars hard. Auto industry needs a wake-up call too. This has to be done *now* and it's going to be hard.
Nuclear power is cheap, safe, and easy. A man sitting atop a cooling tower at Three Mile Island would have gotten more radiation from the sun than he would have received by a few stray radioisotopes.
Chernobyl had something called a positive thermal coefficient of reactivity, meaning that the hotter the core got, the faster the reaction, and the more heat given off. A really primitive design, and really bad consequences. Western reactors have a negative thermal coefficient of reactivity (if they get hot, they automatically shut down). Anyone know about a thing called SL-1? Even the Army couldn’t hurt civilians.
There are three new nuclear power plants being constructed in the states. Each is being built on an existing federal nuclear facility because of the impossible nature of getting new permits. As our system of government fails, expect to see blanket permitting for new power plants. The company formerly known as Westinghouse has a boiler-plate design, sufficient for a medium-sized city, waiting to go.
O’Bama in 2008!
I have previously posted of the industrial use of cannibis. It can grow almost anywhere, is a sustainable resource, and make's various products of superior quality. But best of all, it can be cheaply refined to run all liquid requirement's for a car. As a fuel, it would be cheap with no, or low polluting. Refineries already exist and could easilly be converted. The people could directly participate in our energy system, by growing the legal insustrial plant, in field's, lot's, yard's, flower boxes. You harvest your plant's at any age, and take them to the nearest recycling center, where they pay you for it, and truck it to the refineries where product's are made, and sold back to the public, at reasonable prices...hopefully.
This could end dependance on fossil fuel, help clean up the air ect, and end poverty for some people...
This wont happen...there are just to many American's who are scared to death someone might smoke some of it...better to have oil war's....
Pelayo, put solar in Arizona, not in NY. Lots of unused desert and lots of sun. Also, the prices of solar will come down as usage goes up. I really like electric for another reason: no money to Middle East. If you're just supplementing the lack of their oil with Canadian oil sands, you're still helping them. Even if you don't buy from them, someone else will. Saudis are financing Islamic revolution and dhimmism through our gas tanks. The only way to stop them (and force them to learn to do something other than praying to Allah) is to stop using oil. Another good thing about electric cars is the stability of electricity prices. And we don't know what dumping all that CO2 does to the planet (I'm obviously not subscribing to the 'we'll destroy the planet in 20 years' MSM gospel).
Even if they drive the price to $150 there would be trouble for all Western economies.
SerbInfidel, An electric car that is recharged from a power grid that is primarily a coal source power system, is a car that is indirectly powered by coal. If your power system uses a lot of natural gas electricity generators, that electric car is for all practical purposes a natural gas powered car. When you think of an electric car, think of where the power to recharge the batteries comes from.
As a side note, all this hoopla about ethanol fuel from corn is preposterous because gasoline is used in the farm equipment that harvests the corn!!!! Whatever gains are made because ethanol burns cleaner is lost because diesel or gasoline is burned to harvest it. A comprehensive study is needed, but the corn belt politicians wouldn't allow it. My gut instinct tells me that more BTUs are consumed in processing the corn than is realized from burning the alcohol. It does take energy to create energy, but growing corn does not pass my chuckle test.
Hydrogen seems to have lots of potential, only if the hydrogen is created through nuclear, hydro-electric, or solar power. A hydrogen fueled internal combustion engine is clean beyond imagination. Only water vapor comes out the exhaust pipe. There would have to be some controls to reduce oxides of nitrogen; that can be accomplished by lowering the combustion temperature.
I will save the discussion about wator vapor being the most potent green house gas for another forum. (Water vapor has more green house impact than carbon dioxide.)
Albania prepares to welcome Bush
By Nick Hawton
BBC News, Belgrade
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6737855.stm
Well, Bush is popular in Albania and Kosovo - that must be a comfort to his advisors.
And following on, the sting comes at end of the article
I just read recently read an article detailing the comeback of the old-fashioned push-mower, which described how much lawn mowers pollute-- apparently one hour of running a lawn mower can pollute as much as driving 100-odd miles. Best excuse I've heard yet for walking around the yard with a scythe (just kidding!).
After reading your comment, I wonder about fuel economy and pollution levels from larger equipment, and in that light, what the net gain currently is from ethanol as a fuel source.
What we have now is a start. Going electric (on a coal-dependent system) and/or to ethanol or biodiesel wouldn't solve the environmental issues you mentioned, but it would help get us away from foreign oil (though switching the heavy equipment to alternative fuels will likely be an uphill climb). Of course, more sources of clean, renewable electricity should be pursued simultaneously.
In the meantime, I guess there's always the option of using less (as I type this by the light of a compact fluorescent bulb), and as Hugh has pointed out, the economic incentive is our friend there.
They seem to be daring the West to pull a premeptive tactical nuclear strike. Without the Militant Islamist regime in Tehran, who would command them? The only thing the Muslim warlords have ever understood or respected is brute force.
Bring back the age of imnperialism. Do it like it used to be done in past centuries: Sit down with a map and carve the middle east up bwtween the United States, Britain, France, Russia, and anyone else that wants a piece of the pie.
The whole region's a threat to world peace, and it's time we did something about it. Their rights end where other peoples noses begin.
Just think of it as taking the lunatics into protective custody.
DP111, Dubyah pretty smart about that visit. They have 500 marines on hand with clearance to shoot, they aren't allowing armed Albanian police anywhere near him and he'll be there only seven hours. That's a friendly visit for sure. I hope they have enough Pepto Bismol on hand as he doesn't seem to be in a good shape after that G8 summit!
I have a question - what percentage of the Infidel world's non-transportational energy needs are from oil, as opposed to other sources - hydro, nuclear, coal, et al? That looks like an obvious place to start - for instance, why should American homes be heated by home heating oil (i.e. petroleum derivatives), as opposed to wood, coal, charcoal, electricity, et al? Also, no electrical plants anywhere should be based on gasoline or such liquid fuels that can be used in transportation: instead, have them all based on a variety of sources - clean (to the extent possible/economical) coal, hydro, nuclear (and step up the research on Fusion based plants, so that nuclear waste is not a problem in the forseeable future): the ultimate goal should be to reduce oil consumption in this sector to zero.
On the transportation side, rail travel could be a good idea, if powered by such commercial power sources, instead of... oil. The bio-diesel or ethanol alternatives don't look promising, since they would affect food supplies based on the relevant crops, be it soyabeans or corn. Even if the US switches from extensive to intensive farming, I don't see it producing enough corn or soyabeans to feed its cars. In the meantime however, solar powered cars are under research, and looks like over time, cars that are simply powered by the sun could be viable, at least in tropical and sub-tropical climates, reducing the annual demand on gasoline by probably 40% - translate that into that much less cash for Islamic activities. What remains could be, for the short term future, supported from non-Islamic oil sources, such as Russia, Canada, Venezuela (at least for non-US consumers: if Hugo Chavez sells his oil to China and India and uses that cash to prop up Cuba, all that is cash that the Mohammedans won't be getting, regardless of what one thinks of Chavez). It would still be a while before the ummah runs out of cash.
As for the Iranian threat above, it's pure bluster. After all, once they stop selling oil, where will they get all the cash that they need to fund Hizbullah and keep their own regime propped up - from Farsi rugs? Same thing with the Arabs - what will keep them afloat - dates, and camel dung? These clowns have nothing to sell but their oil, and once others no longer need them, they are toast.
Of course, all this is based on the assumption that Jizia aid to non-oil rich countries like Egypt and Pakistan will end, and doesn't spread to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Iran, Qatar, et al once such solutions are found.
BBC aids and abets Islamic terrorists:
http://sheikyermami.com/2007/06/10/bbc-aids-and-abets-islamic-terrorists/
Gaddafi wants Horsetrade: Lockerbie Bomber in Exchange for Bulgarian Nurses
:
http://sheikyermami.com/2007/06/09/gaddafi-wants-horsetrade-lockebie-bomber-in-exchange-for-bulgarian-nurses/
The closing the Straits of Hormuz would cut off 25% of world oil exports. In addition its a real possiblity Russia and Venezuela could halt exports.
We can't be the ones to start the next War. Let some one else do it.
non-redneck if you do not realize democracy runs on oil. your independence runs on oil. yeah sure it would be nice to have bike lanes, you can stop complaining and go to your local polilticians and work towards bike lanes. and l read someone said about waistlines of Westerners being to wide, have you seen the average Paliestine, or Iraqi arab, or more so the Saudi's waistlines, seems they enjoy the food that Western countries produce for the world, especially the US and Canada. Sure the the West uses up a lot of oil, but the US,Canada, etc feed the world. We do not depend of Iranian oil, infact it is running out, and so their trump card is quite
empthy. One of the things l agree with Hugh is the US can and should do some very creative pointed areial bombings of Iran. and l think that is why theyare in the Gulf, to egg on the Iranians so they can justify such attacks. the way the Democats want to have dialoque with Iranians, Bush neede to do the right thing and put iran back in its place.
I say let 'er rip!!! I'm willing to take my chances with these Ayatollah bastards now. If they are this bad ass now just wait a few years. This inflammatory rhetoric is a free lesson, a free glimpse into an Iranian dominated future. Where these Muslim rotters control Mid East oil pricing and allocation via intimidation.
If GW Bush attacks Iranian nukes I will forgive all his sins of illegal alien amnesty on down
asif,
my definition of a redneck is basically a Texan. Texans have some good points, but not many. So a Texan is what I associate with a redneck. I don't consider southerners or midwesterner to be rednecks.
ZenaWarriorPrincess,
To be blunt, you are very naive about the way things work in Texas. Complaining to the state and local representatives here does no good. The chances of getting good public transportation or bike lanes in Houston, Texas is like being able to prove Islam is a peaceful religion; it won't happen.
When the state proposed a light rail system in Houston, it meet with stiff oppostion from the auto industry, the oil industry and the rich people. It barely passed the PUBLIC vote. And even now, people are still trying to fight the expansion, so that the next segment of light rail was delayed by 2-3 years. Texans do not want to reduce dependency on oil, they want to drive cars and not use public transportation. And for God's sake, most cities in Texas don't have sidewalks in over 60% of the city. You either walk on the street or in the grass, which is not feasible after it's rained.
If the USA was serious about reducing oil consumption. They would install solar panels on all buildings for heating water, like they do in Israel.
Oil can never go to $250 a barrel, no matter what Iran does in the Persian gulf. Remember when OPEC placed the embargo on the States in 1973? What was the price then? And that was something the US Navy couldn't rectify. The price went up, the Honda Civic was born, the price came down, and life went on.
What would happen, however, if price controls were not put on gasoline in the event of a mid-East crisis, is that the speculators will push the price up to $10/ a gallon as the profit-takers they are, shutting down the trucks that delivery your food. Generally price controls are a bad idea, but with gasoline being so volatile a market, one nuclear bomb going off in the middle east will see the speculators put the price so high your refrigerator will be empty in days. The market price will stabilize of course, but in the meantime, profiteers will have done a lot of damage.
When the price of gasoline fluctuates by 40 cents a gallon overnight, that is not Iran or OPEC doing that. That is the oil speculators on Wall Street playing with the market to make a quick buck with oil futures. That nonsense should be stopped. It is estimated that half the price of a barrel of oil is speculation.
Also keep in mind that America gets only 11.5% of its oil from Saudi Arabia. America can make up for that by drilling its own oil, but environmental politics prevents America from doing away with that 11.5% and thus keeps the Whitehouse friendly with the House of Saud.
With talk like this, one would think we could get the overly restrictive environmental groups to allow the construction of nuclear power plants. However, such groups and the word "think" are often not compatible.
THIS IS A NO_BRAINER.
Screw the nukes.
Iran has 1 - yes, count 'em - ONE petrol refinery.
Knock out the refinery, close the seaports, and wait for the country to shut down.
No fuss, no muss, no bother!!!!!!!!!
You REALLY want to be meticulous? Go in and take out the military infrastructure, airports, radar and such after that. The story is OVER!
You can walk in at your leisure and disassemble the nukes after all the dust settles.
Iran: Mess with us and the oil becomes $250.00 barrell
....when this happens Irans oil revenues become significantly lower...
....I suspect Iran may become a footnote in history...
Posted by: rational
I'm coming around to your way of thinking, rational. A selective neo-colonialism might do wonders for the world. This untouchable sovereignity of current borders was a nice, well intentioned experiment along the lines of 'democracy for Iraq'.
We need to follow the example our grandfathers set in 1945. We need to destroy regimes, occupy nations over a generation and dictate write the constitutions of said 'nations' ourselves. We need to destroy the basis of justification for the militarism as we did in postwar Japan, when we had the divine Emperor forsake his divinity in the public forum.
Changing a culture or civilization can't be done half-assed or on the cheap. If we're serious about it it's going to take the effort we put out for post war Germany and Japan in terms of men, material and will last many, many months.